pollyemma said:
I think it's an excellent age for an engagment. (I've got 10 more years!) no seriously, even if she does get engaged at 33 she will still be younger when she marries than most of the current crownprinces of Europe.
She still has plenty of time for children. Princess Laurentien of Holland had her latest child at age 40. and I know many women who have children beyond that age.
Victoria needs a very special man to fill the unique role of Consort to the Queen of Sweden and she will take her time to find him.
Well, if you have problems with your fertilty, 35 is maybe not the best age to start with making babies. Nature is then much less generous with (healthy) babies. That is something, which is often not discussed in connection with all these old mothers.
Well, I admit, that I also say this so often in connection with such discussions, because women giving birth to their first child in late years are pure horror for me. I know, that I shouldn´t generalise (there are surely exceptions!) and I don´t talk about women getting at a later point in life a "pet for the family" (as it was e.g. with princess Caroline of Monaco and her Alexandra). What I´m talking about are these women, who have focused all the time on their career and later they focus with the same energy on their children. Not, that younger mothers wouldn´t focus on their children either. But all these permanent discussions on poo-poo, paedogagic wooden toys, the right carrot juice (and if to drink it at all), these comparisons of the own child to other children, running all the time to teachers, overprotecting children etc...I see it much more at older mothers
And then Victoria, already a protective big sister, waiting longer and seeing all bad things, that can happen to children...sounds like an explosive mixture
If here mothers, who gave (or will give) later in life birth to the first child, or if children of such mothers read here, pls don´t be upset...I just talk about my observations...and maybe it´s just a cultural thing (in my country, surroundings etc.)
The next theory is something, which I´d partly wish, wouldn´t be true...but I think, that not all ppl, who married found the big love in life (figures on divorces would speak for me
) If you want to have children, and if you are for marriage, you will probably marry at a certain point in life...high likely you will be in love, but at his point, you can´t know, if it is forever. And if it works IMO depends on the ability of both sides to grow together and to give enough freedom. So my conclusions are a) that you have never a guarantee and b) that many ppl never experience the big love (on both sides). But all female ppl experience, that their fertility disappears with the years. So if you have bad luck, the in the end better choice jumps off (because he doesn´t want to wait anymore...or youself dump him for waiting for mr. right) and later in a moment of biological panic, you marry the next best guy crossing your way
Well, of course it´s also wise in Victoria´s position to check the guys through and through (what she obviously does)...but as I said 1001 times before, usually the guy self doesn´t change and at a certain point, one should know, if one can imagine a life with him as hubby or not. Of course hopeless romantic ppl go on to wait for Mr. Perfect (and end then with the next best guy...well, I´m repeating myself
)
And I can also only repeat myself in my statement, that waiting that long with a wedding to Daniel (for the case it is planned! In the past months I got more and more doubts) is a PR disaster and doesn´t do him a favour...